Prisoners' eligibility for ordinary leave under reformative intent, despite police apprehensions about law and order.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are convicts undergoing life imprisonment in the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Kannur. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are accused Nos.3, 8 and 10 respectively in S.C.No.99 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Manjeri. Since 27.04.2023, they have been undergoing sentence. The petitioners applied for ordinary leave under Rule 397 of the Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014 (for short ‘the Rules’). The competent authority refused their request for ordinary leave as per Exts.P1 to P3 orders. In the impugned orders, the competent authority recorded the following findings:-

(a) The District Probation OfÏcer recommended ordinary leave of the petitioners.

(b) The District Superintendent of Police reported that if the petitioners are permitted to visit their homeland, there is a possibility for violent clash between them and their rivals which may lead to law and order issues.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the mandate of Rule 397 of the Rules, submitted that the reasons cited to reject the applications for ordinary leave by the competent authority are not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me to the report of the Superintendent of the Prison concerned, wherein it is stated that, during their imprisonment in the prison, the authorities did not notice any misconduct on their part and that they were disciplined prisoners who lived in good behaviour. The Superintendent of the Prison further reported that no disciplinary actions have been taken against the petitioners.

4. The only ground relied on by the competent authority to refuse ordinary leave to the petitioners is the apprehension of the Police authorities, that their presence in the locality may create law and order issues.

5. I have gone through the specific reasons cited by the competent authority to deny ordinary leave to the petitioners. The report of the Police highlights only a general apprehension regarding law and order issues in the locality to which the petitioners belong.

6. Ordinary leave granted to a prisoner is a facet of the reformative process. It is one of the ways by which a prisoner can reform himself and mingle with society, transforming himself into a responsible citizen.

7. In Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and Others ( 2017 KHC 6641 ), the Apex Court observed thus:-

“14. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that amongst the various grounds on which parole can be granted, the most important ground, which stands out, is that a prisoner should be allowed to maintain family and social ties. For this purpose, has to come out for some time so that he is able to maintain his family and social contact. This reason finds justification in one of the objectives behind sentence and punishment, namely, reformation of the convict. The theory of criminology, which is largely accepted, underlines that the main objectives which a State intends to achieve by punishing the culprit are: deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. When we recognise reformation as one of the objectives, it provides justification for letting of even the life convicts for short periods, on parole, in order to afford opportunities to such convicts not only to solve their personal and family problems but also to maintain their links with the society. Another objective which this theory underlines is that even such convicts have right to breathe fresh air, al beit for periods. These gestures on the part